|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| May 2001 |
|
|
Employer breached statutory and common-law duties by failing to provide insulating gloves and safe work measures, causing severe injury and amputation.
Labour/employer’s duty of care – Factories (Electricity) Regulations s.28 – failure to provide insulating gloves – breach of duty and causation – defence under Factories Act s.71(2) rejected – damages for amputation and loss of earning capacity.
|
28 May 2001 |
|
Whether applications for judgment on admission are interlocutory and when correspondence amounts to an unequivocal admission.
Civil procedure – Judgment on admission – Whether interlocutory or final – Admissibility of statements of information and belief in affidavits (Order 41 r 5) – Requirement to disclose sources and grounds – Admissions in correspondence – Discretion to grant judgment on admission.
|
28 May 2001 |
|
Labour disputes under the Employment Act must be commenced in the Industrial Relations Court absent exceptional circumstances.
:[
|
18 May 2001 |
|
Applicant's challenge to an arbitration award for wanting extra damages was dismissed for lack of misconduct and procedural basis.
Arbitration Act s.3 – arbitrators' authority and umpire appointment; no appeal from arbitrators' award; s.24(2) challenge; desire to reform award insufficient; no misconduct found.
|
14 May 2001 |
|
Court stayed action 90 days where former director lost authority to instruct counsel and died; counsel lacked company mandate.
Company law – authority of director to instruct counsel – change of director and counsel – representation without company authority – personal loss vs company loss – stay pending enquiries into deceased director's estate.
|
11 May 2001 |
|
Applicant’s assertion of legitimate expectation and Wednesbury unreasonableness failed; decision remitted for reconsideration with reasons.
Administrative law – Judicial review of tribunal decision – Legitimate expectation – Requirement of clear, unambiguous promise or established practice – Wednesbury unreasonableness – Duty to give reasons; remit for reconsideration.
|
7 May 2001 |
|
Court found mayor and police guilty of contempt for disobeying an injunction and unjustifiably dispersing a public meeting.
Civil contempt — disobedience of injunction restraining disruption of public meeting — mens rea in contempt — validity and sufficiency of penal notice and service — police reliance on prevention of disorder/superior orders — suspended custodial sentence to protect freedom of assembly.
|
5 May 2001 |